From: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@frugalware.org>,
"Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org>, <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: git describe weird behaviour
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:52:34 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201011100952.34352.trast@student.ethz.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101110041428.GA8955@sigill.intra.peff.net>
Jeff King wrote:
> The trick is in keeping track of how far we've gone. It looks like we
> keep the number of seen_commits, increment each time we traverse a
> commit, and then assign that to the "depth" field. But I don't see how
> that can be right. We are traversing in a breadth-first manner, so we
> may look at 1000 commits down one ancestry chain of a merge before
> following the first parent on another.
I haven't really spent more than about 3 minutes on this, but it seems
to use insert_by_date() (except for the start of the search) to walk,
so it would seem to be affected by date skew in some strange way that
I have yet to investigate.
So I merged your git-skew from pu and compiled, and ran
frugalware-current(master u=)$ git skew --all
182448414
frugalware-current(master u=)$ python
[...]
>>> 182448414/86400/365.25
5.7796030116358654
Unless I'm reading your commit message a2ffa6b96 wrong, that means the
repo has a worst-case clock skew of on the order of *six years*... So
maybe it's once again an undocumented effect of clock skew on our
history walks?
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-10 8:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-10 1:00 git describe weird behaviour Miklos Vajna
2010-11-10 4:14 ` Jeff King
2010-11-10 8:47 ` Maaartin
2010-11-10 8:52 ` Thomas Rast [this message]
2010-11-10 14:03 ` Miklos Vajna
2010-12-09 1:33 ` Miklos Vajna
2010-12-09 3:28 ` Jeff King
2010-11-10 19:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2010-11-10 20:40 ` Miklos Vajna
2010-11-10 21:24 ` Jonathan Nieder
2010-11-10 22:07 ` Miklos Vajna
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201011100952.34352.trast@student.ethz.ch \
--to=trast@student.ethz.ch \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=spearce@spearce.org \
--cc=vmiklos@frugalware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).